Ask / Submit
16

[Jolla C] Storage layout [answered]

asked 2016-05-27 14:21:50 +0200

MartinK gravatar image

updated 2016-05-28 11:07:17 +0200

dmnk gravatar image

Does Jolla C still use btrfs or the new & more sane LVM + EXT4 storage layout used on the Jolla Tablet ?

edit retag flag offensive reopen delete

The question has been closed for the following reason "the question is answered, an answer was accepted" by chemist
close date 2016-05-29 14:46:56.821017

Comments

We will see in July, but I would assume that this would be reflected in recent Firmware updates too?

Venty ( 2016-05-27 14:34:57 +0200 )edit
5

I would hope (for any future devices) that the btrfs was noted not to work and they have moved to the same filesystem as in the Tablet for the devices to come.

raketti ( 2016-05-27 14:50:33 +0200 )edit
1

I hope not! >:O

Kollin ( 2016-05-27 16:47:37 +0200 )edit
9

The main problem with btrfs is maintenance and the knowledge how these modern file systems differ from classic ones. What happens when you snapshot, what happens when you delete stuff, what happens when you move stuff? What happens when you copy stuff (wrong way) what happens when you copy stuff (right way: COW).

On servers it is a must to low balance weekly. I am running all my machines with btrfs for years now (with tools running like snapper, btrfs based docker and btrbk) and the file system is rock stable. When you look at professional dists (redhat) you see that exactly that is done (cron jobs for btrfs scrubbing and balancing).

On the jolla I avoid using internal flash for own stuff but store everything on a (btrfs) sd card. The only stuff on the internal flash are apps. 5G used. No problems till now.

Of course: if you want to hide the whole btrfs stuff from the end user you need good background utilities and/or enough disk space.

Newer btrfs versions needed (I know you backport but...). btrfs fi usage would be nice.

cy8aer ( 2016-05-27 17:39:29 +0200 )edit
1

@raketti: The main issue with BTRFS was that the storage space was too small, there is a recommendation to use larger than 16GB devices if going for BTRFS, so had Jolla gone with twice the size for the storage, then there had been less issues (not saying all issues would have disappeared). Sure you can use lvm instead for the snapshotting (which I think is the main reason to ignore the warning from BTRFS-wiki), but will be a bit more complicated as you need to generate a new UUID for the snapshot and you can't just rename it as simple as it's in BTRFS.

Trizt ( 2016-05-28 17:39:06 +0200 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by » oldest newest most voted
6

answered 2016-05-27 22:01:41 +0200

Acce gravatar image

According to @larstiq talking on #jollamobile@freenode (search for btrfs: http://www.merproject.org/logs/%23jollamobile/%23jollamobile.2016-05-26.log.html):

... LarstiQ Lieke: no btrfs ...

I'm assuming he is the same guy as the person on TJC marked as Jolla sailor, so he probably knows what the situation is.

edit flag offensive delete publish link more

Comments

1

Boooooooo hiiiissssssssss :/

ApB ( 2016-05-27 22:49:03 +0200 )edit

Question tools

Follow
2 followers

Stats

Asked: 2016-05-27 14:21:50 +0200

Seen: 1,024 times

Last updated: May 27 '16